|
Excuse me if I am talking out of the wrong orifice; it's a bad habit I've picked up. Of course, this place being what it is I expect to be corrected if i am wrong.
Anyway, my understanding is that there is more than one possible nuclear fuel cycle and not all are equally dangerous. Thorium reactors are supposed to far more safe than 'conventional' reactors in that they leave no (or very little?) radioactive waste. They may even be less prone to explosions. However they don't produce weapons-grade plutonium which is why the world was saddled with the type of reactors that we have. I think India is looking at using thorium reactors. Anyone know more?
Regarding solar and wind power and the need for a steady baseline supply: I've heard Bojan talk about this before and, as he has expertise in this area, I respect his views. However I've also heard others with expertise in the area who don't seem to see such a big problem. I believe some countries (Holland and Germany come to mind) are already getting a "substantial" fraction of their electricity from wind and solar and they are coping.
Personally, I'd like to see as much power as possible generated locally and centrally produced power only used to make up any shortfall. Battery technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds and rooftop solar panels are aesthetically unoffensive. Power lines, power stations and wind turbines on the other hand are all pretty ugly. As for dams, well the Snowy scheme probably would get past the EIS these days.
|